Transcript War against Terrorism

War against Terrorism
Prof. Kim Jaechun
War against Terrorism

NEW FACES OF WARFARE:
MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF WAR AGAINST
TERROR

It’s not a war between nation-states… states vs.
bandits!

No traditional distinction between combatants and
civilians/ no distinction between battleground and
civilian areas…

Conventional deterrent won’t work…massive
retaliation would not deter them (terrorists)…

Clausewitz’s trinity in which states direct their
military and people may become less relevant (at
least on the part of terrorists)

Clausewitz’s contention that annihilation of
enemy forces is critical may become less relevant
(at least on the part of the US)

Defending your homeland from terrorist attack
may be extremely difficult (defense is not easier
unlike Clausewitz’s conviction that defense is
easier ceteris paribus!)

WHAT CAUSED 911? WHY DO THEY HATE THE US SO
MUCH? WAS THE INCIDENT PRECURSOR OF CLASH
OF CIVILIZATION?

US blaming explanation
• Noam Chomsky – 911 is the result of the bungled
US foreign policy in the Middle East…

Arab-blaming view
• 911 took place because of the idiosyncrasy of
Muslim religion, people, and culture

Failed statehood in the Middle East (F. Zakaria)
• Plus demographic change
• Source of their rage and hatred is “local.”

MILITARY CAMPAIGNS DURING THE
AFGHANISTAN WAR AND IRAQ WAR

Afghanistan War
•
Pessimistic prediction at the outset; Afghanistan
was Soviet’s graveyards during the 1980s…
•
Air war
 Was it critical to the swift American victory?

Taliban was in strategic defensive position;
geography of Afghanistan made it easy for
Taliban to endure American aerial bombing…
•
Ground war

First Phase: To overthrow Taliban regime
 Swift victory for the US  prediction at the
outset
 Pessimistic prediction… why?
 Geography makes it perfect setting for the Taliban
to hide and wage the kind of long and dreary
guerilla warfare…

Why swift and decisive victory, then?
 American covert action
 Afghan tribal militias (Northern Alliances) took the
lead in ground operations
 Proxy war!!

Second Phase: To round up OBL and remnants of Al
Qaeda
 Didn’t really go well. Why?
•
Afghan militias are not interested in chasing
remnants of Al Qaeda
•
American troop reduction. NATO is in charge… but
NATO countries are not committed to the job –
Operation Enduring Freedom
•
Renewed war efforts by Obama, but decided to
reduce number of troops  Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, Former Commander, International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Former
Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan

It seems that the US and NATO simply
don’t have the means to stabilize the
country…

Not enough soldiers to fight the remnants
of AQ and lack of know-how to bring
stability to the country… lack of means…

Diversion to Iraq War!!!

Iraq War
•
Air war - “Shock and Awe”
•
First phase of the ground war: To overthrow
Hussein regime and seize the country
 Pessimistic prediction at the outset as well…
Why?
 Relatively easy… Why?
 The CIA began a broad range of covert action at
least three months before the war began… (NYT
08/10/03)
•
Second phase of the ground war: To restore
order in Iraq and round up the insurgent forces
 Not going well…

Evaluating American WAR AGAINST
TERRORISM

“When political leaders launch a war, they should make it
clear what they want to achieve, and how they intend to
achieve it…” (Clausewitz) “If we decide to commit our
forces to combat overseas we should have clearly
defined political and military objectives… And we should
know how our forces can accomplish those
objectives...(should employ proper means!!)” (Powell
Doctrine)

What is (should) be the political objective of War against
Terrorism?

Then, what were the objectives of the war in Afghanistan?

How did the US war in Afghanistan serve objectives of
war against Terrorism?

What were the objectives of the war in Iraq? How did the
US war in Iraq serve objectives of war against Terrorism?
Afghanistan War and War on Terror

What were the war aims of Afghanistan war?
How did they serve political goal of WAT?




To overthrow Taliban regime
To disrupt the military base of Al Qaeda in the
region…
To capture or kill OBL…
A long-term objective – To establish functioning
statehood (or maybe democracy…)

Ousting Taliban and defeating AQ…



Quite successful, initially…
The US had a good chance to destroy top
command of AQ, but let them get away… Why?
Insufficient troop commitments… (because of fear
of heavy casualties and diversion of Iraq war, I
think…)
•
Battle of Shah-I-Kot valley…

Passing the buck to NATO, but they are also
unwilling to risk heavy casualties…

AQ and Talibans were back in Afghanistan!
Iraq War and War on Terror

What were the war aims of Iraq war? How did
they serve political goal of WAT?

To overthrow Saddam…Why?
•
•

Demonstration effect… Deterrent effect
•

Threat of WMD???
Saddam giving helping hands to AQ???
Rationality of irrationality…
To make Iraq a test case for democracy in the
Middle East… because democracy is a cure for
terrorism…
•
•
Did the US employ proper means to achieve this goal?
Can democracy be imposed by outside forces through
military means?




Did they employ proper means??
American Penchant for Air War (instead of Ground
War)…
 improper means to stabilize the country…
Seymour M. Hersh writes in the New Yorker that the key
to Bush’s plan is to get American troops out of harm's
way – but keep fighting the war from the air.
“A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the
President's public statements, is that the departing American
troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly
strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve
dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi
combat units. The danger, military experts have told me, is that,
while the number of American casualties would decrease as
ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and
the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase…”

Post-war military operations were basically
“Civil Affairs Operations (民事作戰)”

…Military working with civil authorities and
civilian populations in the commander’s area
of operations to lessen the impact of military
operations… to restore peace and stability…

Did the US employ proper means for “civil
affairs operations?”

Did not understand the nature of warfare they
will be fighting!!!

Size and composition of the US forces was
based only on what is needed to defeat the
organized armed forces of an enemy
government..

Should have the ability to provide security and
stability for the civilian population of post-war
Iraq…

Failed to match the means and political
objectives…
•
•
•
Counterinsurgency
Training local people how to govern themselves
This requires huge commitment!

Rumsfeld Doctrine



A small number of soldiers (equipped with the
state-of-the-art weapons) and air power could
achieve American objectives of war…
Baseless belief in RMA!
Quick withdrawal and Incrementalist approach in
Iraq war
•
•

Shortage of American troops
Surge plans (300,000 more troops later in 2006)
Powell Doctrine

If you decide to engage militarily overseas,
commit overwhelming number of troops…
commit yourself to win! (Gulf War)

But General David Petraeus did marvelous
job restoring the order

Some Iraqis gave Petraeus the nickname
'King David,'

If promotion or democracy had been a
political objective of Iraq War, did the US
employ proper means?

Now OBD is dead, but remnants of AQ are at large

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been responsible for a large
number of the attacks within Iraq: The group has claimed
more than 200 incidents causing almost 2,000 fatalities.

Sectarian violence and insurgency also continue to
plague the country.

The average number of daily insurgent attacks – a
separate measure from the Al Qaeda attacks –
increased from 61.8 in the period Feb. to June 2005 up
to 159.8 in Feb. to May 2007.
What’s next?
 WAT should be fought on all fronts


Cultural, political, and diplomatic fronts as well as
military…

More efforts at public diplomacy
•
To win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslim
War of Ideas… (Van Evera)
•
Assistance programs (foreign aids)
•


Build infrastructure…
Restore American Soft Power!
The Bush Administration’s Military
Transformation
 The Backdrop of military transformation

New security environment after the Cold War…
- rise of “asymmetric threats” such as terrorism,
attacks on its space assets, information attacks
on its networks, cruise and ballistic missile
attacks on its forces and territory, and attacks by
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or
high-explosive (CBRNE) armed adversaries that
take advantage of enhanced cutting-edge
technology development, such as worldwide
communication and information technology
backed by advanced scientific improvements.

We need to restructure our military in order to deal with
these new types of threat efficiently… With the help of
RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs), now the US is in the
process of restructuring her military and American troops
abroad  military transformation
•
•

RMA  “Smart weapons” with “surgical precision”
RMA means that quantity (or size) of the forces matter less, what
is more important is quality (or ability) of the forces…
“…future American military force is defined less by size
and more by mobility and swiftness, one that is easier to
deploy and sustain, one that relies more heavily on
stealth, precision weaponry and information
technologies.”
•
military transformation  now the army, navy, and air force are
going through fundamental restructuring…
•
 Rumsfeld Doctrine!

Related US governmental documents

Quadrennial Defense Review Report(QDR) released in
2001 by the Department of Defense;

The Defense Secretary’s Annual Report to the President
and the Congress in 2002;

The National Security Strategy of the United States of
America (also called The President’ Report) released by
the White House in 2002.

Common theme  New type of threats require new
strategies… traditional deterrence policy would not work
against new threats… therefore, we have to restructure
our military…!!

QDR – the new 1-4-2-1 strategy




“1” is to defend the United Sates. As the highest priority of
the U.S. military is to defend the nation from all enemies,
America will maintain sufficient military forces to protect its
mainland;
“4” is to deter threats from four key regions, including
Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asian littoral, and the
Middle East/ Southwest Asia by forward deploying forces in
these troubled regions;
“2” is for swiftly defeating attacks against U.S. allies in any
two theaters of operation in overlapping timeframes. U.S.
forces will start its fight with a forward deterrent posture
with immediately employable forces, including long-range
precision strike capabilities from within and beyond the
theater, and rapidly deployable maneuver capabilities;
“1” is obtaining a decisive win in one of the two
simultaneous campaigns mentioned above.

GPR: Global (Defense) Posture Review 2004

GPR is necessary for the US to deal with new
threats… GPR is necessary to perform 1-4-2-1
strategies! … redeploy and transform US forces
abroad!!

The existing overseas military bases, heavily
positioned in Europe and Northeast Asia, were
deployed and designed to contain Soviet
communism..

The “fixed” forces that were heavily stationed in
Germany and the Korean Peninsula during the Cold
War era are no longer necessary…

The new US military forces is not focused on the
number of soldiers, but rather on military
capability. And military capability can be
increased by enhancing its speed, capabilities
and flexibility 

strategic flexibility! The US attempts to increase
strategic flexibility of their forces at home and
abroad so they can be readily deployed to deal
with threats worldwide… make them more fluid
and mobile…! e.g., USFK

USFK and strategic flexibility

Traditional mission: Deterrence of North Korean
threats (trip wire concept)  New mission: To be
deployed in case of regional contingencies and
others…
1. Reduction of USFK
•
•
•
•
2004 – 5,000
2005 – 3,000
2006 – 2,000
2007~2008 – 2,500; by year 2008, reduction by
12,500 (number has readjusted during MB-GWB
summit early 2008)
2. Yongsan garrison moving to Pyongtaek…
2nd Division also moving to south of Han
river…

Number is decreasing, but small and stronger
with speed and more power…
•
•
Deterrence of North Korea in danger??
Does this mean crisis of ROK-US alliance?

Reduction and redeployment of USFK

Reduction of USFK and moving of Yongsan
base should be understood as a part of GPR…

After restructuring USFK, ROK would have
primary role in deterring North Korean threats,
while USFK would be in charge of variety of
new tasks!!
•
•
Conflicts over Taiwan strait? War against
terrorism…
Containing China…
2010 QDR and BMDR

The US will focus more on prevailing current
wars (in Afghanistan)

QDR during the Bush admin was more future
oriented!

During the campaign period in 2008, Obama
seemed to have reservation about BMD, but a
new BMDR stresses importance of it in US
military policies…

Long range missiles technologies of NK and Iran
are still insignificant, but short to medium range
missiles are dangerous…

Need cooperation from SK and Japan for NK
threat, and other friendly countries in ME for
Iran’s threat…